alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the filing by Ionatron, Inc. (the “Company”) of its Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”)
      I, Thomas C. Dearmin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:


(i)
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and




(ii)
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
                Company.




This
      certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
      Executive Officer of Ionatron, Inc. with the requirements of Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used for any other purposes. A signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Ionatron, Inc. and will be retained by Ionatron, Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/
                Thomas C.
                DearminThomas C. DearminChief Executive
                Officer


Date:
      May
      10, 2006
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply627Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Doclarens (not verified)PermalinkOctober 30, 2020 - 4:05amCharles De Witt: Founding Farmer, A Life of Service really amazing research.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00281-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 362nd District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. F23-2654-362

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

Ex parte David Mason Scott
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant David Mason Scott attempts to appeal from a docket entry noting 

the denial of his requested habeas relief. Although an order denying pretrial habeas

relief is immediately appealable, see Ex parte Sheffield, No. PD-1102-20, 2023 WL 

4092747, at *11 (Tex. Crim. App. June 21, 2023), “to be appealable, the order denying 

relief must be a signed written order.” Ex Parte Fry, No. 07-12-00156-CR, 2012 WL 

1694362, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 15, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication). “[A] docket entry, even one signed by the trial judge, 

is not an appealable written order.” Ex parte Salim, Nos. 02-19-00009-CR, 02-19-

00010-CR, 2019 WL 490516, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 7, 2019, no pet.)

(per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 

Because we have not received and Appellant has not referenced a written order

denying his requested habeas relief, and because such an order is necessary for us to 

obtain jurisdiction, see id., we warned Appellant that we could dismiss his appeal for 

want of jurisdiction unless, within ten days, Appellant or any other party showed 

grounds for continuing it. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. More than ten days have passed, 

and we have not received a response. 
3

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 

43.2(f); Salim, 2019 WL 490516, at *1 (dismissing similar appeals from docket entries

denying habeas relief); Ex parte Wiley, 949 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, 

no writ) (same). 

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: November 22, 2023
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00414-CR

STEVIE WYRE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 179th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1364440).

TO THE 179TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 29th day of August 2014, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on May 10, 2013. After submitting the case on 

the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the 

parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains 

no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial 

court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered August 29, 2014.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle. Opinion 
delivered by Justice Sharp.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

April 17, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 5057 1 Conference Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus
Sonny Allen Thomas,
Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 96

- 1

Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

The attorney appointed to represent Sonny Allen Thomas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Thomas has filed a response. We ha ve reviewed counsel’s

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 29, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50571 Document: 00515919636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2021No. 20

- 50571

2 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Thomas ’s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R

. 42. 2. Thomas’s pro se motion to postpone disposition of his appeal is DENI E D. Case: 20-50571 Document: 00515919636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2021
#### Doe Children, In re

25263,

25267

05/18/2004

Affirmed
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60652

Summary Calendar

ERICA N. STEWART,

Plaintiff−Appellant,

versus

BELHAVEN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant−Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

No. 3:16-CV-744

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is an appeal only of sanctions, assessed as $100 to the plaintiff client 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60652 Document: 00514412453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2018
No. 17-60652

2

and $500 to her lawyer. The question is whether the plaintiff and attorney 

destroyed or spoiled or failed to produce evidence, which consisted of messages 

stored on the plaintiff’s phone. 

The district court explained the sanctions in a convincing order that 

found “a pattern of deception” that included a “discovery violation and false 

statements.” The court explained that counsel had received a letter demanding 

him to “preserve and sequester” the phone. The defendant “was therefore surprised to learn . . . that the phone had broken and was no longer in [plaintiff’s] 

possession [but] had been taken . . . to a local AT&T store [where] she purchased a new phone.” “In her deposition, [plaintiff] could not explain how some 

of the text messages were deleted from her phone before they were shared with 

the EEOC.” “When [she] did search her iCloud, moreover―. . . she identified 

new, material, and important evidence. That . . . directly contradicts [her] earlier sworn statement that she had produced everything to [the defendant].”

The order granting monetary sanctions is AFFIRMED, essentially for 

the reasons given by the district court.

 Case: 17-60652 Document: 00514412453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                     150,555,289             155,721,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,604,269              26,016,582
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,133,770)             (1,105,432)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           182,435,544             184,121,645
<PP&E>                                       5,610,089               5,327,474
<DEPRECIATION>                               (556,084)               (676,651)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             238,434,831             232,048,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,400,785              15,675,768
<BONDS>                                    115,000,000             115,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    183,000                 233,000
<COMMON>                                       876,314                 863,095
<OTHER-SE>                                 106,130,360              98,065,205
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               238,434,831             232,048,480
<SALES>                                     29,645,703              73,193,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,645,703              73,193,088
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,166,777              46,900,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,199,594              17,318,703
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               122,617                 317,588
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,838,128               3,357,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,770,146              11,036,934
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,400,381               4,436,847
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,365,190               6,576,387
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,365,190               6,576,387
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19                    0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19                    0.38


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


July 27, 2018


 


Monroe Capital Management Advisors, LLC


311 South Wacker Drive


Suite 6400


Chicago, IL 60606


  


 


 


To Monroe Capital Income Plus Corporation:


 


Monroe Capital Management Advisors, LLC (the “Adviser”)
hereby undertakes and confirms that it shall reimburse Monroe Capital Income Plus Corporation (the “Company”) for organizational
and offering expenses incurred up to $250,000 in connection with the Company’s launch and initial private offering. 
The Adviser further confirms that in the event that the Company does not receive a formal commitment of external capital, organizational
and offering expenses incurred will be borne by the Adviser.


 


Sincerely,


  


 


/s/ Theodore Koenig


 


Monroe Capital Management Advisors, LLC


	Name:	Theodore Koenig
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund XI, Ltd. at June 30, 1999, and its statement of income
for the six  months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the  Form  10-Q  of  CNL Income Fund XI, Ltd. for the six months ended June 30,
1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         1,804,990
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  82,930
<ALLOWANCES>                                   562
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         24,611,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,803,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,744,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     34,183,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,744,319
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,861,817
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  475,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,476,390
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,476,390
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,476,390
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due  to  the  nature  of  its  industry,  CNL  Income  Fund XI, Ltd. has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000018000
<NAME>                        Carter Wallace Inc.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         35,124,000
<SECURITIES>                                   18,667,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                 124,196,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    6,730,000
<INVENTORY>                                    87,221,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              301,156,000
<PP&E>                                        291,486,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                136,642,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                685,922,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         158,184,000
<BONDS>                                        54,283,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                       34,655,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,550,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  685,922,000
<SALES>                                       648,755,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              656,181,000
<CGS>                                         243,657,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 610,832,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                6,414,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              4,186,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                45,349,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   18,593,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            26,756,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   26,756,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        



</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7809

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SEAN BRADSHER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Huntington

. Robert C. Chambers , District Judge. ( 3:17

- cr
- 00025

- 1 )

Submitted : May 19, 2020 Decided: June 4, 2020

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Sean Bradsher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Sean Bradsher appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Bradsher , No. 3:17

- cr
- 00025

- 1 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 19, 2019) . We dispense with ora l argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32****Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the Report of Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based ontheir best knowledge:1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as ofand for the periods covered in the Report.       /s/ MICHAEL L. BENNETT   /s/ DANIEL D. GREENWELL   Michael L. Bennett    Daniel D. Greenwell  President and Chairman of the Board   Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer  Director (Principal Executive Officer)   (Principal Financial Officer)         Dated: October 25, 2007   Dated: October 25, 2007  This written statement set forth above is being furnished as an exhibit solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed aspart of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document of the company or thecertifying officers.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JOSE FERREIRA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:90-cr-00432-1) 

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 29, 2009 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jose Ferreira, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Jose Alberto Ferreira appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United 

States v. Ferreira, No. 1:90-cr-00432-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 

2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 14, 2004 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Keith E. SiroisKeith E. SiroisChief Executive OfficerJuly 23, 2004




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### State v. Piper

17422

8/24/94

Affirmed